186. There is an awkward split in the responsibility
for collection and disposal of household waste. Collection is
carried out by the Waste Collection Authority (which is formed
by the Borough or District Council, or the Unitary Authority).
The Waste Disposal Authority is formed by the County Council or
Unitary Authority. Of course, this means that where a unitary
authority exists, it forms both the Waste Collection and Disposal
Authorities. Elsewhere, witnesses told us that co-operation was
sometimes limited between the two arms and that they were often
operating with very different agendas.[285]
The flow of funding to the different types of authority can also
be a problem.

187. United Waste Services wrote that "the major
obstacle of divided functional and financial responsibility for
waste management in some local authority areas should be resolved...".[286]
Similarly, the National Association of Waste Disposal Authorities
talked of their desire to see "more of a unified approach",
possibly through the use of joint boards and ultimately the establishment
of a single waste management authority in each area.[287]

188. The Government is certainly aware of this issue,
noting that "the current division between Waste Collection
and Waste Disposal Authorities can work against an integrated
approach to waste management" before going on to reassure
that it "will promote policies and initiatives aimed at improving
cooperation and collaboration between authorities."[288]
In particular, the Government has made clear its plan to make
the drawing up of Municipal Waste Management Strategies mandatory
and has now issued guidance.[289]

189. Measures must be taken to ensure greater
co-operation between Waste Collection Authorities and Waste Disposal
Authorities. Although the Government has now issued guidance for
the drawing up of statutory Municipal Waste Management Strategies,
we are concerned that these should be prepared and agreed as quickly
as possible. If these strategies do not prove to be successful,
the Government should give consideration to the use of single
waste management authorities with responsibility for both collection
and disposal.[290]

million from the New Opportunities Fund for Community
Recycling.(although this is still being consulted upon); and

increasing the council tax.

The additional funding for 'environmental, protective
and cultural services' (EPCS) must cover sports, leisure and library
facilities and other functions as well as waste management. It
is entirely up to local authorities to decide how to divide up
this money between the various functions. Friends of the Earth
noted that waste management takes less than one quarter of the
total EPCS block[292]
although Mr Meacher said he expected at least half of the additional
money to go to waste management.[293]
We hope that the Government will monitor spending to ensure that
this proportion is actually spent on waste management. These amounts
of money should be considered against the targets which local
authorities must achieve on recycling and diversion from landfill.
Local authorities expressed their disappointment with the funding
made available and the Local Government Association wrote that
the £1.127 billion is:

"disappointing, as it
only provides modest additional funding for waste management,
which is patently inadequate to meet the changes demanded by the
National Strategy and Landfill Directive."[294]

191. The LGA went on to call for "further substantial
investment in local government."[295]
Indeed, although the amounts of money being made available look
sizeable, Biffa Waste Services suggested that around £500
million would be taken up by increases in the Landfill Tax, inflation
and the growth in waste.[296]
We have already noted the need to develop comprehensive systems
of kerbside collections to achieve higher rates of recycling and
composting and the costs which are associated with this. Friends
of the Earth, for example, estimate that a maximum of £10
per household per year is necessary to provide an efficient kerbside
recycling service. FoE went on:

"The extra funding announced
by the Spending Review will be inadequate to fund the development
of source separated kerbside collections across the country, or
support the infrastructure, publicity and education needed to
drive councils to recycling-intensive strategies."[297]

Indeed, we have already noted our disappointment
that the Government has not published any detailed costing of
kerbside collections or any other of the actions they expect local
authorities to take. Biffa Waste Services Ltd have estimated that
the costs of meeting the targets in the Waste Strategy 2000
"are unlikely to exceed a further £3-£4 billion
per annum in total."[298]

192. Although many witnesses expressed deep concern
that the funding available would be inadequate to meet the targets
or secure a transition of waste management practices,[299]
we did not attempt to come to a conclusion on this matter. However,
we did identify one aspect of the funding issue as particularly
important: if a step-change is to be achieved (in levels of recycling
particularly), there are likely to be quite high transitional
costs. It is not clear to what extent the costs of setting up
better waste services will diminish as they become established
since this depends on a range of factors, not least the adequacy
and stability of markets for recycled materials. The method and
efficiency of collection of materials will also play a big part.
Nevertheless, it is likely that costs will fall over time and,
for now at least, we should concentrate on how to fund the transition.
This point was emphasised by the Consortium of Essex Waste Collection
Authorities:

"the important thing
about that [the funding required] is it is essentially transitional.
What we have to do in terms of waste collection is to make a step-change
from what is still primarily, not totally, a traditional method
of collection to one that allows us to have kerb-side collection
... What we need help on is to get us from one method of collection
to another."[300]

Robin Murray noted that, once the initial change
had been made, "the costs reduce, mainly because markets
pick up, so market prices are better, more people participate..."
He went on to estimate that the total cost for the country of
starting-up kerbside recycling schemes would be approximately
£2billion. As we have already made clear earlier, we are
recommending that considerable amounts of revenue from an increased
Landfill Tax and a new Incineration Tax be made available to local
authorities wishing to pursue sustainable waste projects. This
mechanism should ensure that there is no shortfall of funding,
even for those local authorities with ambitious waste management
plans which go beyond the targets set in the Waste Strategy
2000. By allowing local authorities to bid up to half of their
Landfill Tax and Incineration Tax liability, it could be ensured
that the funding is used by those authorities which are in transition.

"It is very clear from
that, that the level of public knowledge of what happened to their
waste, their rubbish, once it was put in the bin, was very, very
low. Something like 30 per cent of the survey said they had any
idea at all of what happened to it (or indeed cared) until a planning
issue appeared on their own doorsteps."[304]

194. Witnesses were concerned that the planning system
may seriously hinder the achievement of the targets in the Waste
Strategy 2000.[305]
For example, the Composting Association told us that:

"the concern the Association
has is that the Government have set statutory performance standards
for 2003, but we are not going to have anywhere near enough infrastructure
in place by then to be able to deal with the projected quantities
of organic waste that will need to be composted."[306]

Similarly, the Royal Town Planning Institute noted
that "the town and country planning system will be unable
to deliver the necessary facilities in time to meet Waste Strategy
2000's targets."[307]

195. Many witnesses stressed the need for better
public information (led at national level) and much greater use
of local consultation.[308]
The case for extensive and detailed public consultation makes
itself: a sceptical public will not be convinced by simply being
told that such facilities are required and planning for waste
facilities can easily stagnate if proper consultation is shirked.
It will take real consultation with a better informed public to
achieve a consensus on local waste strategies and the facilities
required to implement them. We were particularly impressed with
the evidence of the Planning Officers Society on this matter in
stating that they:

"... would wish to see
a more open, transparent dialogue with local communities, well
in advance of any waste management proposal being formally submitted
... we need to move to a situation where the submission of the
planning application is the final stage of a process which has
extended over some months if not years, possibly emerging from
the development of a local waste management strategy owned by
all sectors of the community..."[309]

With an open and courageous approach to consulting
on waste management, waste planning could become less adversarial.
Unless this process is started soon, many authorities will risk
missing their 2003 targets.

197. This statement illustrates a problem which became
clear during our inquiry: there is the potential for tension between
the 'bottom-up' approach embodied by the Best Value initiative
and others as against a more 'top-down' approach (in which an
'expert' opinion may be imposed upon an unwilling local population).
We consider that the 'top-down' approach will not work with the
current public attitude and level of knowledge about waste. It
amounts to a short-cut and in the longer-term, the public must
be convinced of the need to change their own practices as well
as the local authority's. We were, therefore, reassured by the
Government's response to our last Report on Sustainable Waste
Management, in which they stated that:

"The Government does
not believe that waste management decisions should be approached
by seeking to

impose
a 'technically correct' solution on local communities, regardless
of their views ..."[311]

198. The Government has backed the setting up of
Regional Technical Advisory Bodies (RTABs) which will advise Regional
Planning Bodies and provide specialist advice on options and strategies
for dealing with waste that will need to be managed within each
region. Although the concept of RTABs is a good one, it is not
clear how effective they are likely to be with their current make-up.
They neatly illustrate the potential for a 'top-down' approach
to alienate other groups. For example, the Composting Association
criticised their composition because they "primarily comprise
planning officers" and the Association went on to call for
a balanced membership of the RTABs.[312]
We are concerned that the role of Regional Technical Advisory
Bodies (RTABs) will be to aid the development of large-scale landfill
and incineration sites. The RTABs should, instead, focus on the
need for new facilities for options further up the hierarchy,
such as re-processing capacity for particular materials. We believe
that the RTABs will be better able to fulfil this role if they
have a broader membership which includes representation from the
local community and are seen to be clearly part of Regional Chambers,
which is already happening in some areas. This would also help
to ensure that they do not fall into the trap of trying to impose
their 'expert' point of view upon local people. The regionalisation
of waste management decisions should not result in the loss of
community ownership of such decisions.

201. Although some individual firms are taking a
more ambitious and thoughtful approach to the problems of waste,
the attitude of the CBI is symbolic and represents many of the
problems of achieving a step-change. For example, the CBI told
us of that measures which had been successful in Germany would
not be successful in England and Wales because of "cultural
differences".[314]
Such statements reflect one of the main problems with waste policy
discussions: more energy is expended in discussing unreal barriers
to change than is ever spent considering what we could change
for the better. We are extremely disappointed with the inertia
and negative attitude of the CBI to changing the way the UK deals
with its waste. Rarely has the old phrase 'if you are not part
of the solution, then you are part of the problem' been more apt.
At present, it seems that the CBI represents the least ambitious
of its members at the expense of the most forward-looking and
ambitious firms. There is a need for leadership from the CBI to
show its less aware members the business potential that exists
in change whilst also reminding them of their civic responsibilities
in this regard.

by 2005 to reduce the amount of industrial and
commercial waste sent to landfill to 85% of that landfilled in
1998

204. The main routes for challenging industry to
act are through producer responsibility initiatives, taxation
and more widespread green procurement. We have already discussed
the importance of producer responsibility initiatives but a couple
of examples help to illustrate the potential and the problems.
First, the problem of junk mail leaves few members of the public
with anything less than frustration at the scale and regularity
of a wasted mail-out. Although we were told that the Government
is in talks about voluntary controls to regulate junk mail, we
are concerned that these should be introduced as soon as possible.
Any unsolicited mail should be clearly marked with a freephone
telephone number which can be used to halt further unwanted mailings.
Such mail should also be easily returnable at the expense of the
mailer and this should be made clear on the envelope.

205. Another example is provided in agriculture:
around 81,000 tonnes of plastic waste are generated by farmers
and growers each year.[316]
At present, these materials are mostly dealt with on the farms
themselves and are usually burnt. A scheme to collect and recycle
such plastics was set up in 1988 but this collapsed twice, apparently
for financial reasons.[317]
Successful schemes have, however, been set up in other countries
and these appear to rely upon a deposit and return basis.[318]
There is no good reason why a similar scheme should not work here
in the UK.[319]
It is, therefore, a classic case where producer responsibility
could have quick and effective results. Also within agriculture,
we were told of the development of farm waste management plans,
with limited guidance from MAFF. Currently, these deal with manures
and slurries. There is an opportunity, as agricultural waste comes
under the waste management licensing system, for MAFF to offer
broader advice on how to develop a comprehensive farm waste management
plan covering both natural and non-natural wastes.

206. Our earlier recommendations that the landfill
tax be increased and a tax on incineration be introduced should
play the major role in encouraging businesses of all descriptions
to look at their waste performance. One particular requirement
may help to fix waste in the consciousness of UK business. For
many years, there has been talk of environmental reporting and
recently, the Government has encouraged businesses to do this
voluntarily. However, this has not been particularly successful
and in our Report on UK Biodiversity last year, we recommended
that companies be required to draw up environmental accounts.[320]
The voluntary encouragement of environmental accounting has
not been successful. It is now time to introduce a statutory requirement
on businesses to produce environmental accounts. Amongst other
things, these accounts should provide full details of the firm's
waste performance.

"On the most basic level,
we have fewer overheads because we have no shareholders. We are
better trusted by the community often than the private sector
or indeed sometimes the local authority. Because we are not for
profit, any surpluses we make are invested within the community,
usually in further waste management provision..."[322]

Similarly, the Recycling Consortium told us that:

"We have an enormous
amount of experience. The organisations involved in the consortium
have been around for 20 years doing this sort of work. The waste
management companies are very new to this and have only been dragged
kicking and screaming often. We are also very innovative ... our
sole rationale is the promotion and development of waste reduction,
reuse and recycling. The waste management companies are driven
largely by the profit motive and will put their investment wherever
it is going to make the most profit. If that is recycling, so
be it, but it might not be. It might be energy from waste."[323]

208. The Recycling Consortium suggested that further
work needs to be done on how to foster partnerships between local
authorities and community groups.[324]
They also noted the threat posed by authorities letting long-term
integrated waste contracts which can tend to shut-out community
groups. This point is echoed by the Community Recycling Network:

"Integrated waste management
is an important concept, but does not mean that one large waste
management company can or should attempt to do everything within
a local authority area."

Joint tendering for refuse and recycling collection
contracts poses a real threat to the continued involvement of
the community sector.

209. The Community Sector must be encouraged to
take a greater share of the waste management business:

Local authorities must be encouraged to recognise
the worth of community activities: a single, well-organised community
activist can often be more inspiring than a local authority employee
given the task of enthusing the local public;

The Local Government Association should work
to ensure that best practice of working with community groups
is spread to all local authorities;

The Government should urge local authorities
not to preclude separate contracts for recycling collections so
as to allow the community sector to bid. Integrated waste management
does not require single large contracts, just integrated thinking
in the structuring of waste contracts;

We welcome the Government's intention to make
landfill tax credits available to community groups and we believe
that this should be incorporated into the changes we recommend
for the operation of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme.